Orca Bay Images wrote:
Be grateful, OP. You got saved the trouble of working with a complete idiot.

+1

Dannyb66 wrote:

I havnt treated him like an idiot, I have explained to him over several messages and pointed out the whys and reasons, but he dosnt believe you can get a good shot without artificial light. And wont accept what I am telling him.

Maybe you're misunderstanding him. Perhaps he is saying that you can't get a good shot in natural light.

This is what he said (from your OP);
"ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo  actually"

I don't know, but maybe he doesn't like your work with natural light.

J Jessica  wrote:
I don't want to read through the argument.
Did you shoot the girl in natural light, yet?

No, I told him I think its best we dont work together and wished him luck for the future.

Dean Soapbox Killer Photo wrote:
Maybe you're misunderstanding him. Perhaps he is saying that you can't get a good shot in natural light.

This is what he said (from your OP);
"ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo  actually"

I don't know, but maybe he doesn't like your work with natural light.

I wouldn't say that from his first contact with me
"Hi there
I am interested for your casting.
i love your work !! they are stunning
I would like to collaborate with you for your this project."

Dannyb66 wrote:

I wouldn't say that from his first contact with me
"Hi there
I am interested for your casting.
i love your work !! they are stunning
I would like to collaborate with you for your this project."

Good point

Nadeshiko Yamato wrote:
Well, that person's a bid old derp if there ever was one! What do they think photographers did when the top of the line camera was a pinhole camera? I highly doubt the birth of photography included reflectors and flashes.

To be fair, they weren't taking the kinds of photos we're capable of now back in those days.

Innovative Imagery wrote:

I think he may be responding that on a few of your shots, you have exceeded the dynamic range of the sensor and it doesn't match his view as to what it should look like.

That's what HDR is for. It's not just to make things look surreal.

SPierce Photography wrote:

Wow, you dodged a bullet on that one- i agree with the others, be happy!

Guess that model wont' be working with me, either!

Make the model happy. Open up your pop up flash.

Dannyb66 wrote:
I have been talking to a model about a outdoor shoot planned next week, and I said I only normally use natural lighting in my shots, and use of reflectors, and this was the reply I got...
"ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo  actually"
So guess Im not working with him then.

move on to the next model

BeautybyGod wrote:
i wonder how different this thread would have been if everybody knew/realized that the 'model' was a guy. lol

It's a bit worrying what people are reading even after so many references that the model is a he.

Dannyb66 wrote:
I have been talking to a llama about a outdoor shoot planned next week, and I said I only normally use natural lighting in my shots, and use of reflectors, and this was the reply I got...
"ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo  actually"
So guess Im not working with him then.

It is amazing how much  amateures seem to think they know...

Dannyb66 wrote:
I have been talking to a model about a outdoor shoot planned next week, and I said I only normally use natural lighting in my shots, and use of reflectors, and this was the reply I got...
"ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo  actually"
So guess Im not working with him then.

Yeah, and who's the photographer here? (that isn't actually a question, it's more of a rhetorical statement~ with a hint of sarcasm)

Personally, I like the use of "natural ligt" in outdoor photoshoots.

Strobist DeLux wrote:
It amazes me how many of you have hung this model out to dry in the unkindest of ways for daring to suggest that there's something more to photography than what the sun has to offer.

How many of you think this is an argument between sunlight and a steady burning light bulb in your house?

The model was probably thinking about strobe-assisted photography outdoors.  You all go on and on about lighting.  But are you thinking strobes or light bulbs?  Strobes have nothing to do with light bulbs, and you absolutely cannot get shots like these outdoors without strobe augmentation:












Source:
http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/ligh … otography/

You simply cannot get this kind of look outdoors without strobes no matter how many assistants are holding reflectors for you.  And no reflector at all?  Forget it.

See that pop?  See how clearly the subjects are defined and separated from their backgrounds?  You can't get this look with straight sunlight shots no matter who you are.  And details come across a lot crisper with strobes.

The camera sensor just reacts differently to strobes, producing a vibrancy and richness of detail that cannot be had otherwise. 

The model simply prefers this kind of produced outdoor look assisted by strobes.

And yes, if a photographer has no experience with strobes and "shoots strictly in natural light mostly outdoors," I would think he's an amateur, too.

The moral of this story?  You shouldn't always sign off a model (FEMALE or MALE) as an airhead.  Sometimes you can learn something from your models.  I know I have.

"You're the photographer! And the model is just a mindless blob of flesh who should never question or offer suggestions!"

Are you people for real?

And lastly, what are all these 'natural light' photos some of you have posted?  To prove the point that the model's suggestion was utterly stupid?  Compare your examples to these shots and tell me if you notice any difference.

All you 'natural light photographers' who think this model should be lynched, compare your ports to his:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/355227

you may be shocked to know that not everyone likes that look ( and I venture to say there is a considerable amount of post work done to those shots).

Without critiquing I will just say that those shots look artificial and shopped. Now I use strobes sometimes and I use natural light sometimes but there are plenty of fantastic images shot with natural light.

Alison D Friedman wrote:

Yeah, and who's the photographer here? (that isn't actually a question, it's more of a rhetorical statement~ with a hint of sarcasm)

Personally, I like the use of "natural ligt" in outdoor photoshoots.

A model doesn't have a right to question the photographer?  A model should just shoot with any photographer and trust that he/she knows what the hell they're doing?  No.

And what other kind of 'ligt' would be used outdoors?

Strobist DeLux wrote:
It amazes me how many of you have hung this llama out to dry in the unkindest of ways for daring to suggest that there's something more to photography than what the sun has to offer.

That is NOT what the llama said.  He said, "ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo actually" - copied and pasted from the OP.

Strobist DeLux wrote:
The llama was probably thinking about strobe-assisted photography outdoors.
...etc...
The llama simply prefers this kind of produced outdoor look assisted by strobes.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=844706

chicchowmein wrote:

you may be shocked to know that not everyone likes that look ( and I venture to say there is a considerable amount of post work done to those shots).

Without critiquing I will just say that those shots look artificial and shopped. Now I use strobes sometimes and I use natural light sometimes but there are plenty of fantastic images shot with natural light.

There's another one.  Who ever said beautiful work couldn't be done with natural light alone?  They look artificial and shopped to you, but they're not.  So you're wrong.

Lumatic wrote:

Strobist DeLux wrote:
It amazes me how many of you have hung this model out to dry in the unkindest of ways for daring to suggest that there's something more to photography than what the sun has to offer.

That is NOT what the model said.  He said, "ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo actually" - copied and pasted from the OP.


https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st17277627
Then can you explain why the model said the OP's photos were "stunning" in his initial contact with him?

You have no way of knowing what the model was thinking other than what was indicated by his words.  And all anybody knows of that is what the OP has stated.


Then either you are guilty of the same level of assumption you accuse others of, or you ignore or are unaware of the history of your profession.  Or both.

This isn't about strobe vs. continuous light.  What set this thread off was an apparently ignorant statement about what makes good photography.


Nice rant, though.

And everyone has right to their opinion.  So why is the model such a criminal again?  This whole thread is a wrong-headed rant.

And everything hinges on the quickly typed words of a model?  Please.

I think the OP just got butt-hurt and needed his wounds licked by all of you.

Strobist DeLux wrote:
There's another one.  Who ever said beautiful work couldn't be done with natural light alone?

As I pointed out above, the model you're defending said so, apparently.

Strobist DeLux wrote:
And everyone has right to their opinion.  So why is the model such a criminal again?  This whole thread is a wrong-headed rant.

I didn't say he's a criminal.  But he is apparently uninformed and willing to make statements as such.

That's all that's going on here.

Strobist DeLux wrote:

There's another one.  Who ever said beautiful work couldn't be done with natural light alone?  They look artificial and shopped to you, but they're not.  So you're wrong.

There is no way that third one down has not had some work done in photoshop at the very least the contrast has been tweaked considerably and the shots are super saturated. There is no way that shot in particular came out of camera like that.

Period. How about I take those shots over to someone at the Photographic Center and ask them if those photos came out of camera like that

chicchowmein wrote:

There is no way that third one down has not had some work done in photoshop at the very least the contrast has been tweaked considerably and the shots are super saturated. There is no way that shot in particular came out of camera like that.

Period. How about I take those shots over to someone at the Photographic Center and ask them if those photos came out of camera like that

What?  So we're not allowed to post anymore?  All of our stuff has to remain untouched as it came out of the camera?  What are you saying?

Image Works Photography wrote:
This is an old thread but I wanted to chime in- strobes work their purpose in the studio and outdoors. Not everyone would like the particular look but there is a big following when it comes to filling in the shadows on a person's face and bringing back the color. At the same time the shadows can also be a different style for artistic expression. Tho I find myself using strobes more often today- I started using natural light and by all means it works if you know how to find even light or blow out the background. I can't always find someone to hold the reflector either. So if your happy with that style good for you.

Why can't more people have an approach like yours?  That's basically how I feel, but look at the ranting 'natural lighters' who got all offended by a quick sentence typed by a model..

Lumatic wrote:
As I pointed out above, the model you're defending said so, apparently.

Let the model be wrong.  Maybe I felt like being the only one to defend him because so many of you pooped on him.  Life goes on without a thread like this.

Strobist DeLux wrote:

What?  So we're not allowed to post anymore?  All of our stuff has to remain untouched as it came out of the camera?  What are you saying?

You said NO post work had been done to the images when I said the shots looked artificial and shopped.

And I said there is no way that came out of camera looking like that. And actually I would bet none of those came out of camera looking like that.

chicchowmein wrote:

There is no way that third one down has not had some work done in photoshop at the very least the contrast has been tweaked considerably and the shots are super saturated. There is no way that shot in particular came out of camera like that.

Period. How about I take those shots over to someone at the Photographic Center and ask them if those photos came out of camera like that

what does that have to do with anything? All those natural light shots above have also undergone pp.

chicchowmein wrote:

You said NO post work had been done to the images when I said the shots looked artificial and shopped.

And I said there is no way that came out of camera looking like that. And actually I would bet none of those came out of camera looking like that.

"But but you said..."

What are you twelve?  Who cares?